Vol. 385 No. 2
I move:
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £300,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1988, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of the Taoiseach, including certain cultural and archival activities and for payment of certain grants-in-aid.
This Supplementary Estimate is required to cover the cost of the Government's information and awareness campaign for the completion of the European Single Market which was launched by the Taoiseach on 4 July.
The entry into force of the Single European Act in 1987 has been the signal for a new surge of activity within the European Community. After a long period of economic stagnation and internal debate and disagreement about the future development of key Community policies, the member states have decided on a broad set of objectives of which the completion of the internal market and economic and social cohesion are probably the most important.
This House has already had an opportunity to consider the implications for the Community of the creation of a Single European Market when the published Cecchini report was debated. It was generally accepted that the lifting of the numerous barriers to the free movement of goods, services and capital and, of course, people would offer many advantages to this country, particularly to industry and commerce provided adequate steps were taken to prepare all those whose economic activity would be affected.
Progress towards the achievement of a single market is now irreversible. This was agreed by the Heads of State and Government at the European Council in Hanover earlier this year and more recently in Rhodes. By the end of the year, the European Commission confidently expects to have tabled over 90 per cent of its legislative programme. Improvements in the decision-making machinery within the Council of Ministers have made an enormous impact in the rate at which agreement on many aspects of the internal market programme have been reached. The European Council has now called for this rate of progress to be maintained and where possible accelerated.
The creation of a Single European Market is clearly of enormous historic importance for the European Community but has equally important economic and social implications for the people of Europe. That is why the deadline of 1992 has caught the imagination of the citizens of Europe and made an indelible impression on their minds.
When the Government launched their information and awareness campaign at the beginning of July, they did so under the slogan "EUROPEN — Think Ahead, Act Now". In that slogan, we have attempted to convey the idea of a Europe which is open to the freer movement of trade on which we in this country are dependent as well as to people who wish to move freely throughout the Community whether for business, education, employment or recreation. We have also tried to give a sense of urgency. We are, in effect, saying that while 1992 may seem some way off, it is in fact just around the corner in terms of strategic planning and preparation which individuals and firms may be about to undertake. If we are to benefit from the estimated economic advantages which a unified market will hold, we must begin to make the necessary preparations now.
In designing the first phase of this campaign, we have tried to do four things: (i) to create awareness about the Single European Market in broad terms; (ii) to provide relevant information on the principal areas where change can be expected; (iii) to highlight the opportunities and the challenges which, with proper preparation, can be seized from the internal market and (iv) to urge individuals and firms to take all appropriate steps to brief themselves and prepare for the single market. We also recognised the need for a truly national campaign. The Taoiseach spelled this out clearly at the national launch on 4 July when he said that what was required in tackling the challenge of the internal market was the national unity and sense of common purpose that we have in launching and implementing the Programme for National Recovery. Those of you who were in the National Concert Hall on that date will recall that the bodies who are partners with the Government in that programme were represented on the platform with the Taoiseach.
On behalf of the Government, I should like to pay tribute to the invaluable role which all the organisations who are partners with the Government in that programme are playing in the EUROPEN campaign. Their support and co-operation, together with their own energetic programme of activities, has greatly contributed to the success and effectiveness of the campaign as a whole.
The economic argument for a Single European Market is by now broadly accepted. The question which is now being asked is not whether it will happen but how can I get ready for it and how exactly will it affect my business and my future? The Government cannot, and indeed should not, attempt to dictate to each firm or organisation what the correct strategy for any individual group should be. It is, however, the Government's role to ensure that the conditions on which we participate in the creation of the single market and the benefits which we can expect from it are, given our status as a peripheral, economically underdeveloped part of the Community, both fair and generous. That is why we attach such importance to the parallel implementation of a meaningful policy for the regional and social development of this country as set out in the Single European Act which specifically calls for the reinforcement of the economic and social cohesion of the European Community. The recent satisfactory conclusion of the negotiations on the reform of the Structural Funds are a vindication of the Government's determination to see reflected in the legislative detail the broad political commitment made by the Heads of State and Government in Brussels in February.
It was to ensure proper co-ordination of important negotiations such as those to which I have just referred that the Government established a Committee of Ministers and Secretaries which is chaired by the Taoiseach. This committee, which meets weekly, will also co-ordinate the steps that are needed to adjust to specific features of the internal market programme.
The main focus of the EUROPEN campaign has been the targeted provision of information and the promotion of specific preparatory action on a sector-by-sector basis through conferences, seminars and group meetings as well as through direct advice and guidance. In addition, the Government commissioned a major advertising and public relations campaign which is being co-ordinated by the EUROPEN Bureau headed by a full time director attached to the Department of the Taoiseach. The seminars dealt with the implications of the specific directives most closely affecting the different sectors but also provided guidance on the changes affecting all sectors across the board on how to adapt in the different functions of business such as production, finance, marketing and so on.
Following the initial launch which focused primarily on raising awareness of the Single Market Programme through television, radio, press and poster advertising, the campaign has moved into higher gear with the series of sectoral conferences to which I have referred. The former Minister for Industry and Commerce, accompanied by representatives of the semi-State agencies most involved in the single market, hosted a nationwide series of seminars at which an estimated 3,500 members of the business community participated. Other Ministers also held or participated in conferences and many were organised by the national representative bodies which joined the Government in sponsoring the campaign. Such has been the proliferation of conferences since the beginning of September that we estimate that there will have been at least one conference a day on some or other aspect of the Single European Market.
The Government have also published a set of 14 information leaflets covering key areas of the Single Market Programme and an extensive advertising campaign inviting members of the public to obtain copies will continue until Christmas. These fact sheets are designed to be updated to take account of developments in the Community and they will be a permanent feature of the campaign. In addition, over 8,000 copies of a booklet issued by the Department of Industry and Commerce entitled "The Opportunity and Challenge for Business" were distributed.
We were also conscious of the interest being taken by young people in the completion of the internal market so we were happy to co-operate with Allied Irish Banks in preparing a special 1992 supplement in the November edition of "Young Citizen". This has been widely distributed in schools and colleges across the country.
The EUROPEN Bureau are also making a financial contribution towards the cost of a video on the Single European Market which is being made by a production team from the "Today Tonight" programme. The office of the European Commission in Dublin has generously agreed to contribute 5,000 ECU to the production costs and has paid for the RTE team to travel to Brussels. The film will last about 35 minutes and is scheduled for broadcast on 13 December. It is our intention, with the co-operation of RTE, that an edited version of this video will be marketed widely. We will encourage companies, organisations and schools as well as individuals to obtain a copy.
The Government drew on the professional services of a private organisation, AIR Call Teledata Services Ltd. to handle the taking and logging of requests for the information leaflets, for their despatch and for generating a data base system for use by the EUROPEN Bureau. The advertising and public relations firms were retained by the Government following the submission of competitive tenders and their fees together with other external payments will be met in accordance with the Government's contracting procedures.
The Government are satisfied that the momentum of the campaign has been successfully maintained. A solid basis of information on what is involved has been relayed through conferences, seminars and information leaflets to a wide crosssection of the population, especially the business community. There has also been extensive well informed coverage in the media of the issues which the Single European Market must address.
The EUROPEN Bureau, in consultation with the private sector and public sector, which have come together in a co-ordination committee on the campaign, are preparing a detailed action programme for 1989. Feedback from the campaign is already showing a growing demand for more detailed information on the implications for specific sectors of economic activity. The campaign will respond to this demand in the most effective and co-ordinated way possible.
We are also aware of the need to have a detailed and sophisticated survey of Irish industry and business to gauge the effectiveness of the campaign in raising consciousness and encouraging serious preparation. I have no doubt that information from such a survey would be of great assistance in planning certain aspects of the next phase of the campaign.
A year ago or even six months ago, it would have been hard to imagine that the "spirit of 1992" would have caught the interest and attention of the public and the business community as much as it has done. There is now a widespread acceptance of the need to prepare for 1992 and the Government are determined to ensure that together with the sectoral bodies, the social partners and other representative organisations, this country will be among the best prepared of any in the Community to take full advantage of the opportunities which will undoubtedly present themselves as the single market becomes a reality.
Deputy Noonan (Limerick East) rose.
Deputy Noonan will appreciate me reminding him of the time constraints which were agreed this morning. The maximum time is 15 minutes per Deputy.
(Limerick East): I thank the Minister of State for her long and detailed speech in the 15 minutes available to her. Fine Gael accept the Estimate and will not make it an issue for a vote. The amount involved is rather small and we accept the fact that the money has been spent in pursuit of legitimate aims.
The sum of £300,000 has been spent on a marketing campaign. It was a reasonably effective marketing campaign in so far as it helped to create added awareness about the Single European Market in broad terms fulfilling the first objective of the Minister's list of objectives in his speech. However, the nature of marketing campaigns, whether they are an attempt to sell soap powder, microwave ovens or the latest trouser press, is to depict one's product as faultless and flawless, better than any other product around and something which you absolutely must have. In terms of the campaign, I congratulate the marketing company for fulfilling those objectives very well indeed but the Government have not fulfilled the role they should fulfil in this case. The marketing of 1992 has been overdone. One side of the argument has been presented but the very real difficulties which will face us in 1992 have been almost ignored. Certainly an awareness has been created but I doubt if all the relevant information on the principal areas where change can be expected has been provided.
As part of this campaign Ministers wander the country. The present Minister for Finance, when Minister for Industry and Commerce, made a series of statements. I got a copy of his script on one occasion in which the benefits of 1992 were marketed very well indeed but the difficulties were scarcely referred to. While it might be the role of a marketing company to show how attractive 1992 will be, it is not the role of Government to give a one-sided presentation of what is happening. This is where I would fault the Government's campaign to date and they should adjust it very quickly.
Opportunities and challenges have been highlighted but difficulties have not been highlighted. While individuals and firms have been urged to take appropriate steps to brief themselves and prepare for the single market the Government have not done the same thing. They have dismally failed to fulfil their role in leading with the changes which are necessary for 1992. I do not think the Government should see themselves simply as Ireland's midwife delivering us into an internal market in 1992. There are things which they must do and there are real issues which must be faced. Otherwise we will miss the second opportunity which Europe is providing us with, having half missed the first one in the years following 1 January 1973.
Fine Gael put forward the following priorities. Probably the most important objective is that we cut the cost of access for people, goods and services to and from Ireland in 1992. If we do not do this we will not survive. At present, as a peripheral country, we suffer the most serious of disadvantages. There are too many air companies in Europe and too many people employed in these companies. The cost of travel to passengers is too high and economic growth and development in the peripheral areas is being penalised by this. You can survive high cost transport, whether by air, sea or internally, if you are in the centre but when you are on the periphery you are in trouble if the transport costs are extravagant and they are very extravagant in Europe.
We have pointed out in our policy document for 1992 that air services in Europe are 60 per cent more costly than in America, that aircraft maintenance costs in Europe are 119 per cent higher than in the US, that airline administration costs are 365 per cent higher and that ground and passenger services costs are 315 per cent higher. It is about time the Government, at their meetings and seminars around the country, began to point out these figures to the businessmen who will be availing of access transport in the export led drive the Government are expecting from them. We must make reduced airline and communications costs a number one priority if we are to survive. Peripheral areas can do very well and industry can be located in those areas if people can move freely towards, communicate cheaply with, the centre.
Again, in the area of communications costs we are way out of line. It was pointed out in The Sunday Times during the summer that the price per phone connection in Europe is between £120 sterling and £265 sterling as against only £53 sterling in the United States. Within Europe Ireland's general charges are exceptionally high. Telephone charges here are 60 per cent above the European average. Inexpensive telecommunications services allow business to stay in the outlying regions whereas expensive services force it to congregate in the large centres. Ireland, led by whatever Government are in power, should again be in the lead, pressing for the implementation of a deregulated telephone system and for a structure of charges that benefits peripheral regions.
Not all parts of the Community will develop together after 1992. The cleverest of marketing agents, fulfilling the mandate given to them by the Government, presenting 1992 as such a desirable objective, will not contribute anything to the economic development of Ireland unless the real issues are faced. The same case I have made applies to the difficulties with which sea travel will present us. Once the channel tunnel is built we will be the only North Atlantic offshore island, certainly the only island nation, in the Community. When we match that with the concept of "just in time" delivery, which is now cutting business costs dramatically and which is so crucial to reducing the overall costs of business by cutting down warehousing space and time, we will have extreme difficulties if our access costs by sea remain at their present level.
We also have infrastructural problems. There is a combination of an inefficient road network, high excise duties on articulated trucks and on carbon oil and hydrocarbon fuels. It costs 40 per cent more here to transport a metric tonne than it does in the United Kingdom. Under the heading of transport costs alone, whether internal or access costs, our economy will take a frightful beating after 1992 in that area. It is a fallacy to go around the country presenting one side of the argument to the Irish people without looking at all sides of it.
I am restrained by the time available to me from going into the area of competition which is also a priority area. As a peripheral nation it is only in competition that we can survive. I could say a lot about the teaching of languages such as German, Spanish and Italian in our schools and about how funds are going to be spent but I have not the time. One area which I have time to refer to, an area which has been neglected, is the whole area of tax harmonisation. I read Deputy Reynolds' speech in Limerick and he never mentioned that matter. That is one issue that affects the Irish people. If we are to highlight the opportunities and the challenges of 1992 we should talk about tax harmonisation. It is being stated in this House and this city at present that there will be a loss to the Exchequer of £480 million. I do not know on what premise that figure is based.
What is the Government's position. Are they going to comply with the proposal of the Commission to harmonise VAT? If we put VAT on zero rated items such as food, children's clothes and shoes, oral medicines, animal feedingstuffs and books, are we going to move in at the top of the recommended band or at the bottom? The House probably knows that two tax bands have been recommended. We are told that socially sensitive items can be taxed at between 4 and 9 per cent and that there can be a standard rate of between 13 and 20 per cent. In order to remain under the standard rate it seems we will have to put 8 or 9 per cent on the socially sensitive items. Will we put 4 per cent on those items and suffer the loss or will we look for compensation from Europe, just as we did when we entered the EMS, until the buoyancy of revenue comes through from greater activity in the economy.
The Deputy has two minutes remaining. It will be possible then to divide the remaining 20 minutes between the other two speakers.
(Limerick East): Are we going to harmonise excise duty? Are we prepared for the political decision which will reduce the price of cigarettes, tobacco and alcohol and increase the price of food? Only today a survey conducted in the United Kingdom was brought to my attention suggesting that the increase in living costs of the bottom 10 per cent of people on the lowest incomes there will be 15.5 per cent after 1992 on the basis of present recommendations of the Commission, whereas the increase in the cost of living for their top 10 per cent of income earners will be 5 per cent. Are we to have a Europe which divides us even more? Will the marketing agency and the Minister of State's colleague in Cabinet not point out some of these issues as they move around the country? Why has nobody talked about the necessity to harmonise deposit interest retention tax? If we are to have free movement of capital within Europe will not that automatically go to the area of least taxation? Will the deposit interest retention tax be removed with a loss of £250 million to the Irish Exchequer? Will we have harmonisation of unit trusts within insurance companies? How will the Custom House Docks site and the Financial Services Centre survive at 10 per cent while Luxembourg is zero-rated?
These are the issues which should be addressed. While I welcome the increase in awareness caused by the expenditure of these £300,000 by the good work of a marketing agency following their brief, it is deplorable that the Government are not leading from the front, saying: look, there are really very difficult issues here which must be faced. Exhorting this nation to pull together, as is suggested in the Minister's script and the Taoiseach leading us to happier fields is not dealing with the issue as it should be dealt with.
Before calling on Deputy Kennedy, in view of the limitations on time, I will direct the attention of speakers to the fact that this Estimate, as it appears to me, refers to the inevitability, indeed the relative imminence of 1992, its significance and the Government's programme in educating people in that regard. I urge speakers not to stray too far away from those issues in this debate.
I shall stray no further than did Deputy Noonan. We are supporting this Supplementary Estimate for the expenditure of £300,000 to fund the EUROPEN campaign to prepare for the Single European Market in 1992. However, we are doing so with considerable reluctance. We do not agree in principle with the idea of retrospectively sanctioning moneys in Supplementary Estimates when these moneys have already been spent by the Dáil. The most noteworthy aspect of this Estimate is that it proves beyond all doubt that the Government had made no plans whatsoever for an information campaign on the single market in last year's budget and organised the EUROPEN campaign only following on intensive pressure on the part of my party and other Opposition parties from mid-year onwards.
Since the passage of the referendum on the Single European Act last year we pressed the Government on every possible occasion to begin a public awareness campaign on the huge implications of 1992. Nonetheless, the EUROPEN campaign — since it was begun on 4 July last — has increased the level of public awareness about our new status in Europe from 1992. In this respect it is disappointing that the Government decided to provide only a similar sum of £300,000 to follow up that campaign for a full year next year.
There is no evidence to date that the Government, or the Committee of Ministers and Departmental Secretaries, established under the chairmanship of the Taoiseach, have adopted a clear strategic approach to upholding Ireland's interests in relation to European developments regarding the single market. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that we are going about the European process in a non-planned way.
The complex nature of full EC integration in 1992 merits more than a sporadic debate in this House late at night. With the exception of references in the course of Estimates for the Department of Foreign Affairs we have had only one single debate in this Parliament on the implications of 1992. That was on the occasion when we debated the Cecchini report before the summer recess, a debate that had been requested by the Opposition parties.
The general lack of debate in this country on the implications of 1992 sector-by-sector brings home the point once again that we need a properly structured foreign affairs committee in this House. I want to avail of this opportunity to repeat my request to the Taoiseach and the Government to consider the establishment of such a committee, a proposal supported by Opposition parties of all hues in this House. The establishment of such a committee is necessary on a formal footing rather than on an ad hoc basis because there is need to address long-term structural considerations of foreign policy.
My great fear about the Government's EUROPEN effort is that a mere publicity campaign is no substitute for a properly planned process to prepare this country for 1992. I still hold that that is not happening. There have been a number of ad hoc announcements on the part of Ministers — indeed changes in the status of Ministers themselves — without any real thrust on the part of the Government to our policy for 1992. It was interesting even earlier today to hear the Taoiseach respond to Deputy Ruairí Quinn by asking Deputies to address questions to the Minister for Finance rather than the new Minister for Structural Funds on the whole important Structural Funds question. One might well ask: what then was the point of changing the portfolio of the Minister for Finance, taking Structural Funds out of their rightful place in that Department a couple of weeks ago?
A cosmetic gloss.
Rather than concentrating on the publicity aspects of EUROPEN — which I concede has opened up an initial awareness of the single market here — perhaps the Minister of State, when replying, would answer a number of specific questions about the Government's intentions for 1992. I pose these questions in the context that 1992 is a mere three budgets away for planning purposes.
As I have already indicated in this House, the Progressive Democrats are wholeheartedly in favour of the completion of the internal market in 1992. We do not want any exemptions or derogations. We take that view because we believe it to be fundamentally in the interests of this country, our economy, industry, our long term employment prospects that we adhere fully to the 1992 deadline.
Since the EC Single Market Programme which is well under way involves more than 350 proposals, the vast majority of which are overwhelmingly in the interests of this country, I am asking the Minister of State this evening to avail of this opportunity to spell out Government policy in a few areas.
The Commissioner-elect and outgoing Minister for Finance, Deputy Ray Mac-Sharry, gave the go-ahead in principle — as I understand it — for the full harmonisation of Irish VAT rates under the 1992 proposals at the Crete Council of Minister's meeting in September last. That was a welcome development. I am asking the Minister of State to outline when replying what plans, if any, the Government have to proceed with this proposal. Will it be done, as would appear to be the obvious way, over the next three budgets?
My party have taken the view, from the beginning of the Single European Market campaign, that 1992 provides the ideal externally-imposed opportunity and deadline to introduce the long overdue reform of our tax system. In order to conform to this principle we published our five-year tax plan last week to bring the rates of personal taxation down to 25 per cent and 40 per cent respectively. We set out these proposals in a planned way in our document. We believe that the Government should do likewise, taking into account the implications of full harmonisation of VAT and indirect taxes in three years' time.
I should like a response from the Minister of State on this issue since we acknowledge that so great is Government dependency on indirect taxation — estimated variously as being in the region of between £460 million and £650 million — that Revenue objection to full harmonisation of VAT by 1992 is a serious one. For example, when replying could the Minister of State report on progress to date among countries of the EC in gaining full acceptance of this deadline on VAT?
We are also seriously concerned about the way the Government are going about organising a national development plan for the vastly increased Structural Funds that will become available to this country from 1992 onwards. The Taoiseach refused in the course of Question Time in the House today to agree that the draft development plans, now completed, could be debated before being sent to Brussels.
There are a number of other areas in which we have heard little from the Government during the six months operation of the EUROPEN campaign. For example, what changes in education curricula are planned in the Department of Education, in particular what proposals have been adopted to teach more foreign languages to our young people? What moves have been taken here to meet the requirement that restrictive public procurement practices operated by member states will be phased out by 1992?
I should like to take this opportunity to publicly congratulate Deputy Ray MacSharry on his recent nomination as our next European Commissioner. Although I strongly believe that the interests of this country would have been better served by leaving Commissioner Peter Sutherland in Europe and Deputy MacSharry in the Department of Finance, I wish our new Commissioner well and I hope he will receive a permanent portfolio in the night of the long knives which we will be sitting down to in exactly a month's time.
Deputy Kennedy made a delightfully wide contribution referring to Europe, but I must advise Deputy Quinn that he should not follow her invitation to refer to how he was treated regarding Structural Funds or anything of that nature, or encourage the Minister of State when replying to be out of order in referring to matters not provided for in the Estimates.
This debate is exclusively about voting taxpayers' money for an information campaign which the Labour Party support. The Labour Party would like to congratulate those responsible for the EUROPEN campaign. The first objective set by that campaign was to make people aware of 1992 and that objective has been achieved.
Although I do not have a comprehensive report on all the awareness seminars that have been going on around the country, from what I have been able to divine from various people I have little or no argument with the Government after less than six months of this campaign. Most of the business community are aware that 1992 is an issue that will affect them in the commercially competitive trading sense. The Labour Party support this campaign and I am not being argumentative when I say that we would like to see twice the amount of money being spent.
1992 involves more than the completion of the internal market. It involves recognising that the completion of the market creates winners and losers and that the Structural Funds have been established to compensate the losers.
During Question Time today I expressed the opinion that I am not convinced that taxpayers' money is being used in the information programme to inform workers and other people who might be directly or indirectly affected of the consequences of the completion of the internal market in the long run, and of what action they can take in relation to securing their jobs. Because of the time constraints involved in this debate I would refer the Minister to my more extensive contribution on the Cecchini report on 19 May and specifically to our historic experience of the CIO reports where industry after industry and sector after sector were identified by the Lemass committee as being in trouble unless they adapted. The owners of industry decided not to adapt. They took their money and went into retirement and the workers walked the streets. We should not repeat that and we can avoid it. Since the net question tonight is to vote moneys for an information campaign there is a requirement for balance across the community and for the sort of social dialogue to which this Government are committed. Equal attention should be given to employers' problems in facing the completion of the internal market and to the implications for workers particularly those in middle management who are perhaps in the worst place of all, and they are not being involved in this process. How can they ensure that they have access to information and can exercise the right to participation in the social dialogue to which the Single European Act refers?
The year 1992 does not relate exclusively to the internal market although the internal market is the dominant issue. There are other factors relating to structural funds. Although this suggestion is probably outside the context of this precise debate I will refer to it. We have already put down a motion on the Order Paper that the joint Oireachtas committee should be renamed the 1992 committee. I have already put down questions to every Government Department and to the Taoiseach on this issue of 1992 but I have got very unsatisfactory replies. The Minister knows what I am referring to so I will not bore the House with it. The Government and the officials can do better than that and the Government have enough political courage and enough political support to do better than they have done. There is no big contest on this side of the House on this issue. We are behind the Minister in trying to get the best for this nation so I would appeal to him not to hide behind the cautious conservative Civil Service recommendation that he tell us nothing so that it cannot come back against him. I am asking the Minister to trust us and to share the information. None of the replies I received either on 8 November or today reflects that sense of courage but I believe the Government are bigger and better than that. I will keep on asking the questions and if I cannot get the replies in a nice way I will get them in another way.
My last point is that we should have an hour each week in this House to talk about 1992 and its implications. We should take from 3.45 p.m. until 5 o'clock every Thursday to talk about 1992. The arrangements would be a matter for the Whips. If we are serious about 1992 and this information campaign indicates that we are being serious with taxpayers' money, we should be serious in this House and practice what we preach. I am offering that as a suggestion which the Minister may wish to consider or to which she might wish to respond.
I will conclude on these four points — the awareness campaign has been a success; the internal market implications have penetrated to the business side; I do not believe that the social participation among those who will be affected has been compensated in terms of taxpayers' money; and the Structural Fund has been limited. My final two suggestions are that we rename the committee and give it a sense of focus and extra resources and maybe give the Oireachtas, in full plenary session, a full hour or a fixed time once a week in the foreseeable future to focus on the variety of issues involved, because this is an enormous agenda and I do not envy the Minister her responsibilities.
First, I thank my three colleagues who contributed to the debate. I am very much aware of their commitment to this area, to the furtherance of our membership of the European Community and their total support for the completion of the single market. There are a number of points to which I would like to respond, and perhaps I could deal first with the points raised by Deputy Quinn as he is still in the House.
I thank him for the compliments he paid myself and the staff who are working on the 1992 awareness campaign. He is right when he says that the first priority of the campaign has been achieved, in that awareness has been created among the business community. There is a much higher level of awareness now at the end of the six months campaign than even those of us who were most optimistic at the beginning felt could be achieved within the six months period. Of course, I would agree with Deputy Quinn that 1992 is about far more than just the completion of the internal market.
When I have spoken publicly I have stressed that if we are to be properly prepared for 1992, if companies and business premises are to be properly prepared, then workers and employees at every level in the company must be kept fully informed of what is happening in the negotiations within a company or between companies. Deputy Quinn is correct when he talks about the warnings that were issued prior to our accession to the European Community in 1973. We all remember that at that time the clothing and footwear industries were identified by Government and Opposition as the two industries which were the most sensitive and would face the greatest difficulties and a great deal of attention would have to be given to them. Despite all the warnings, advice and support given by every State agency at the time, most of those businesses did not take the preparatory steps necessary.
That is why during this campaign we have all worked extremely hard, in all the seminars and conferences and when making guidance available, to impress again and again on the people and representative bodies involved that it is most important that the necessary steps are taken. That cannot be stressed loudly or often enough during the campaign. Of course, there is a need for balance and we have to give equal attention and focus to both sides of the argument.
Deputy Quinn made two suggestions. First, he said that the Oireachtas committee should be renamed the "1992 Committee". In my speech to that committee recently I said I was prepared to go a considerable distance towards meeting certain difficulties the committee have at present. The Deputy can be assured that I have already raised those issues with the powers that be and the chairperson and vice-chairperson will be meeting with the Minister for Finance shortly to discuss that issue, and I hope we can resolve it to the satisfaction of the committee. His second suggestion was that there be a fixed hour each week to debate 1992. That is in line with the suggestion made by Deputy Kennedy that we should have more opportunities to discuss European business and European affairs generally. That is something we would all welcome.
The Government Whip suggested to the other Whips that there might be some system of debating reports on a regular basis — I made that suggestion to the Oireachtas committee. That is a positive suggestion which I believe should be and will be followed up. As the Minister of State with responsibility for co-ordinating European affairs, I would have no hesitation in having more frequent debates on the whole area of European affairs. All I can say is that I will take this up with our Whip and with the Ministers concerned.
I could not accept Deputy Noonan's view that only one side of 1992 is being portrayed. All Ministers, Ministers of State and Government spokesmen have been at pains to point out at each seminar, meeting and conference around the country over the past six months that there are two sides, that there are challenges and opportunities but that there will be difficulties as well. We have been stressing that unless adequate preparations are made, companies and businesses do not have a hope of competing not just at home where there will be increased competition from abroad, but in the vast 320 million market in Europe.
Deputy Noonan said the Government had dismally failed in leading the campaign and he spoke about areas he felt the Government had not addressed. He spoke about fiscal harmonisation, and because of the time constraints perhaps I might deal with that first. As Members of the House are aware, in the area of fiscal harmonisation the Commission produced its proposals some time ago. Those proposals have been discussed at a number of Finance Ministers' meetings. It was decided that the commissioner with responsibility in this area, Commissioner Cockfield, would hold bilateral meetings with the various Finance Ministers from the different member states so that they could outline to him the specific difficulties various countries have — and those difficulties have been outlined this evening by the three Deputies who have contributed and there is no need for me to go into them again.
Those bilateral meetings have only concluded in the last couple of weeks and it is for the Commission to bring forward amended proposals by the end of this month. Those amended proposals will be discussed by the Council of Ministers once again and it is only then that we can take a position in relation to the amendments and how we feel they affect us. The Minister for Finance has indicated at each session of the Finance Ministers' meetings — and the Minister for Foreign Affairs at the General Affairs Council of Ministers' meetings that we support in principle the of a single market, that tax harmonised, that VAT rates taxes should be harmonised, but he has pointed out as well that nothing should happen to divert this country and this Government from the type of stringent economic policies we are pursuing to try to get the economy back on a proper footing. The Commission has been one of the leaders in explaining and offering guidance and advice to countries such as ours and nothing should happen now which would upset the balance if we are to do that.
Deputy Noonan spoke about the fact that we are on the periphery of Europe. This is one issue which the Committee of Ministers and Secretaries have been addressing over the last number of months. Deputy Noonan is right when he says that when the Channel tunnel is built Ireland will be the only country without a direct land link with the Community. The Committee of Ministers and Secretaries have been looking at this area extensively over the last number of weeks and the way the structural funds will be spent over the next five years will be crucial to ensuring that our competitiveness will be foremost in the minds of this Government so that we should not be at a disadvantage because we are on the periphery of Europe. At the same time, we have been at pains to point out to the Commission and our partner countries that Article 130 V is extremely important to this country in terms of cohesion. We cannot have the internal market proceeding and indirect taxes, etc., being harmonised while the poorer regions get poorer and everything is centralised. That is a central issue which each of our representatives at the meetings of the Council of Ministers has been at pains to point out, and they will continue to debate it vigorously within the Community.
With regard to a point made by Deputies Kennedy and Noonan on the proficiency of Irish people in general and young people in particular in European languages, I would only refer them to the information leaflet No. 1 on the Single European Market entitled “The Basic Facts.” On page 3 of that leaflet, there is a comprehensive statement, if I may say so, on the steps being taken by the Minister and the Department of Education with regard to European languages. I would refer Deputy Noonan also to a speech I delivered in University College, Galway last night and which covered many of the aspects he was worried about. In our information leaflets and in speeches made by Ministers, we have given a balanced view and have referred at all times to the potential difficulties or challenges that will have to be faced as well as the opportunities given to us by 1992.
We have only started the work of preparing for 1992. Our whole thrust up to now has been the creation of awareness, making people aware that 1992 is just around the corner and that we must prepare for it now. As I have said, the campaign has moved into a much higher gear in recent weeks in that we are now targeting the information sector by sector. Of course, based on the evaluation that is now taking place we will be in a position, together with the private and public sector, to move towards the planned campaign which we will put into effect at the beginning of 1989 and thereafter.
